Top Rated

Sperm Sorting Function

Background on this post: This is just a hypothesis, based upon some scientific research I have read. I first wrote this as a “note essay” back when I still had my LDS Anarchist account on Facebook. I decided not to publish it here because of its more scientific nature, but I have now changed my mind. So, here it is, in a slightly modified and updated form.

The relationship of Sperm Sorting Function to menopause and fertility

All women have designed into their reproductive organ a Sperm Sorting Function (SSF), the purpose of which is to sort through the various sperm deposits in the vaginal cavity and choose the best genetic material for conception.

As long as the SSF is operative, menopause never happens. Menopause is directly related to SSF shutdown.

If sperm never enters the vagina (as in the case of virginal old maids), or if only sperm from one man enters (as in the case of monogamous relations), the SSF is not activated, because it requires the sperm from two or more men for activation.

The greater the number of sperm donors, the more active the SSF (because there is more sorting to do.) The more active the SSF, the more fertile the woman will be. Fertility is directly related to SSF activity.

Fertility, then, is not solely determined by the female, nor solely by the male, but also (and principally) by the NUMBER of male partners a female has in a given sexual period.

Only when SSF is inactive is fertility dependent upon other factors. In other words, when fertile females (who have not, yet, reached menopause) are in monogamous relationships, fertility is determined by other factors. When she engages in polyandrous sexual relations, the SSF takes over in determining fertility and vastly increases her chances of getting pregnant.

SSF and sperm competition complement one another

SSF and sperm competition are complementary, so that for the multiple males engaging in sexual intercourse with the female, their bodies produce genetically superior and more fertile sperm, to compete with the sperm of the other males, as well as greater quantities of it, increasing the likelihood of impregnation. It is almost as if the testicles know that the SSF has been or will be activated and therefore makes the best sperm it can so that the SSF ends up picking its sperm over that of other men.

The greater the sperm competition and the more active the SSF, the more excellent the genetic make-up of the offspring will be. This process reduces or eliminates genetic mutations, resulting in biologically superior children which continues with each succeeding generation as this mating model is followed.

The reason for menopause

Nature is such that good breeding habits, in which genetically superior children are produced, are prolonged while bad breeding habits are shut down prematurely. Menopause is nature’s way of shutting down bad breeding habits. In monogamous and polygynous arrangements, genetic mutations are still passed on, so the SSF, if it is not sufficiently activated, eventually will shut down completely, causing the onset of menopause.

On the other hand, in polyandry in which sperm variety is continually present, the SSF is continually active and keeps menopause from happening, indefinitely. This is done so that genetically superior children continue to be produced.

In cases in which women are promiscuous (such as prostitutes), but who terminate pregnancies or use contraception, menopause may initiate regardless of high SSF activity, due to the body not being able to follow its natural course and produce offspring.

Just as muscles which perform the same exercises over and over again will become accustomed to them, adapt and then stop growing new muscle tissue—which necessitates changing exercise routines to create muscle confusion, allowing continuous muscle growth—the SSF may also adapt to multiple sperm and eventually shut down, initiating menopause. This happens when the same group of men continue to deposit sperm over time with no introduction of a new sperm variable. The SSF will always pick the same genetic makeup (the best) when presented with the same group of men over and over again. The body will eventually not even recognize the inferior sperm and will function as if there were only one sperm donor, with no need for SSF activity.

To continue to keep the SSF active, a woman needs to alternate the groups of men she has intercourse with. A woman who is married to ten men, then, who has sexual intercourse with this same group of men, will inevitably enter menopause. She must, from time to time, be introduced to new husbands, and change the group of men she has sexual relations with, in order to keep the SSF “guessing” or trying to figure out which sperm is best.

The implication of this, assuming that the above speculations are true, is that a woman could conceive children throughout her entire life, by using a strategy that allows the SSF to always be activate.

All of the above assumes familiar sperm (through marriage) because the introduction of unfamiliar sperm through one night stands and other fleeting relations may cause the female body to react in ways that are detrimental to herself and any offspring that may result.

Gospel applications and speculations

This might explain how Adam and Eve were able to populate an empty world. If Adam lived 930 years, perhaps Eve did, too, or, as is normal for women of today, perhaps she outlived him. If Eve had multiple husbands and her daughters had multiple husbands and so on and so forth, always with a change-up in “sperm line-up” so that the SSF had to constantly figure out which was the best sperm, the earth would have fairly quickly filled up and Eve and her daughters may not have entered into menopause until the very end of their lives, if at all.

A woman today can get pregnant every ten months—nine months of pregnancy and one month of recovery. (This is how my own mother did it with three of her children, in back-to-back fashion!) Women today typically give birth to one child per pregnancy. Sometimes twins are produced, but this is rare. If the human reproductive system is based upon the heavenly birthing process, though, it means that women are, by design and under the right conditions, to give birth to twins, a male and a female. This is because the planets are born by electrical expulsion, in which two planets come out at a time, one out of the north pole, one out of the south pole, one a “female” planet and the other “male.” Or, it may be that women are designed to give birth to first a male (or a female) and then at a later pregnancy a female (or a male.) But however is the design, we do know that females are capable of giving birth to twins, so the capacity is there.

If Eve and her daughters gave birth like the planets, two at a time, one male and one female, and they were exceedingly long lived and always fertile, never entering into menopause, each one of these females may have produced a vast posterity. Just using an imaginary number and saying that Eve was able to give birth 1000 consecutive times, once every 10 months, during a period of 833 years, and supposing that she gave birth to twins each time, a son and a daughter, this would mean that she gave birth to 2000 children, of which 1000 were daughters. Those 1000 daughters, doing the same as her, would each give birth to 1000 daughters. This would give Eve 1000 daughters and 1,000,000 grand-daughters. And so on and so forth: 1 billion great grand-daughters, 1 trillion great great grand-daughters, etc. Obviously, these are just imaginary numbers, not taking into account premature deaths, etc.

Now, looking ahead at the Millennium, if the multihusband-multiwife system is re-introduced among the people and becomes the marriage model for those thousand years, we end up with people who will live just as long as Adam and Eve and will be just as fertile and produce just as many offspring as they did, but with one exception: the first thousand years started with two people only, while the seventh thousand years will start with a vast multitude of people. A thousand years of such peace, progress and posterity will overflow this planet with people. When this planet is filled to the brim with people, the very next year the population will more than double, requiring a second planet upon which to reside. Each succeeding year the population explosion will require more and more planets for all the people. We look at all the planets in the heavens and wonder what they are for, just floating around, supposedly not serving any purpose. Well, it may be that they will find a very important use in the Millennium.

And when all the planets of this solar system are filled to the brim with people, the very next year’s population growth will require an additional solar system’s planets. And so and so forth, until this galaxy is full of God’s children. Now, with such thoughts in mind, we might begin to understand why the Millennium is called the great Millennium by the Lord. It is when the vast majority of His children will come down from heaven to receive bodies and populate the planets of this galaxy.

Assuming that the Millennium is, by divine design, when 99.9999% of the plan of salvation will take place, meaning that 99.9999% of God’s children will be saved at that time, polygyny and monogamy may have been used during the preceding 6000 years to limit the number of children coming to earth. The time just preceding the Millennium, though, may be the right time to bring back (or restore) the multihusband-multiwife marriage system, in preparation for the great Millennium.

Some scriptures that come to mind:

“and [they] did multiply exceedingly” (4 Ne. 1:10)

“there were not…bond and free, but they were all made free” (4 Ne. 1:3.)

“For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband” (Rom. 7:2)

“The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39.)

This makes me think of the multihusband-multiwife marriage system. A wife under this system may become free to marry other men, without being bound to only one husband, thereby allowing her to keep her SSF highly active, making her highly fertile and allowing her to “multiply exceedingly.”

SSF reactivation after menopause (menopause reversal)

Can the SSF be reactivated once it is “permanently” shut down? Sarah was barren and then had her womb open in her old age. We call it a miracle (which it was) but what if there is also a natural and scientifically explanable way to take a woman out of menopause? If the SSF activates with multiple semen deposits and eventually turns “permanently off” with a lack of such semen, could the re-introduction of multiple semen deposits re-start the process? Semen isn’t just deposited and then drips out. It actually gets absorbed into the woman’s blood stream through the vagina. Science likes to isolate individual components of substances, trying to figure out the “active ingredients,” but sometimes isolation is not the name of the game. Like a fruit cocktail, sometimes it is the combination of ingredients that produces the effect, and not any of the individual components. Semen from multiple men may create just such a cocktail. We know, for example, that semen contains testosterone, estrogen and other hormones, such as prostaglandins (made in the prostate gland), luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone. Not all of the chemicals in semen have been identified (or isolated.) Could it be possible that male semen might actually regulate the female reproductive cycle, switching it both on and off?

We have all been taught that ovarian failure is inevitable and that there is nothing that can be done about it. A recent study would suggest otherwise.1 [1 Refers to a study on WebMD Medical News called, Age of Menopause getting later, found on webmd.com]

The timing of ovarian failure can be influenced. Ovaries fail for one reason and one reason only: they run out of eggs. The ovaries contain a certain number of eggs at birth. After puberty, when the ovaries begin to recruit eggs every month, the store of eggs goes down. As long as things go well, the number of eggs recruited each month is approximately the same. Based on the number of eggs at puberty and the number of eggs recruited monthly, a woman’s ovaries should last her until she is in her seventies.2 [2 Refers to Gougeon A, Ecochard R, Thalabard JC. Age-related changes of the population of human ovarian follicles: increase in the disappearance rate of non-growing and early-growing follicles in aging women. Biol Reprod. 1994;50(3):653-63] All goes well until a woman reaches her late thirties, when the ovaries begin to use more eggs than necessary every month. As a result, the store of eggs goes down faster than normal, and the ovaries run out of eggs about 20-30 years sooner than necessary. The reason ovaries begin to use more eggs is because the ovaries are not getting what they need to function well. Like any ailing organ, providing what is needed helps the ovaries work better.

So, menopause is caused by ovarian failure and ovaries fail because they run out of eggs, and they run out of eggs because they start to use up more eggs than is necessary every month, and they begin to use more eggs because they aren’t getting what they need to function well. So, the big question is, what do ovaries need to function well? My hypothesis is that they need a variable semen cocktail (no pun intended) from multiple men who are familiar to her (no one night stands but from long term relationships, such as marriage) on a regular basis, and that this semen cocktail needs to be regularly varied so that not the same group of men contribute to it all the time, but a differently mixed semen cocktail is regularly received into the vagina, because this will keep the SSF activated and will regulate the ovaries, keeping them in perfect heath.

(As far as re-activating the ovaries once they have failed, due to using up the store of eggs, please see the Addendum below at the end of this post.)

There are a set number of eggs in human females that can be fertilized. When they are used up or discarded, that is it, right? But how many does she have?

From a web site:

A woman has the maximum number of potential eggs (primary oocytes) while still a fetus, more than 7 million. By birth the number has fallen to 1 or 2 million, and by puberty to about 300,000. Only 300 to 400 reach maturity.

Why such large numbers? Could it be that these numbers fall due to mutations via generational monogamy? Could it be that the re-introduction of the multihusband-multiwife model might reverse the fall of these numbers, leaving a higher number that reach maturity, so that if females live longer, they would also remain fertile longer? Could the tribal model be some kind of a preparation of the organs of reproduction for the Millennium, in which people will live a thousand years again? Again, all hypothesis, but it would not surprise me if all our numbers are wrong as to how many humans have lived on this planet.

Abstracts

Okay, drum roll please….Here is abstract #1, in which some researchers cast doubt upon the findings of another group of researchers. The doubting scientists say in their abstract:

A group of scientists from Harvard Medical School (Johnson et al., 2004) claims to have “established the existence of proliferative germ cells that sustain oocyte and follicle production in the postnatal mammalian ovary”

And then they go on to contradict those claims. Here is the entire abstract, called Eggs Forever?:

A group of scientists from Harvard Medical School (Johnson et al., 2004) claims to have “established the existence of proliferative germ cells that sustain oocyte and follicle production in the postnatal mammalian ovary,” expressing no doubts about their methods, results and conclusion. Johnson et al. based their conclusions of oocyte and follicular renewal from existing germline stem cells (GSC) in the postnatal mouse ovary on three types of observations: (1) A claimed discordance in follicle loss versus follicle atresia in the neonatal period and in the following pubertal and adult period; (2) immunohistochemical detection of proliferating GSC with meiotic capacity using combined markers for meiosis, germline, and mitosis; and (3) neo-folliculogenesis in ovarian chimeric grafting experiments with adult mice.Oogenesis is the process that transforms the proliferative oogonium into an oocyte through meiosis, followed by folliculogenesis and follicular and oocyte maturation. The most crucial part in producing a functional oocyte is firstly, initiation and completion of the first meiotic prophase, and secondly, enclosure of the resulting diplotene oocyte in a follicle. Neither of these two events has been shown to take place in Johnson et al.’s study of the postnatal mouse ovary. We hereby address the observations underpinning their hypothesis and conclude that it is premature to replace the paradigm that adult mammalian neo-oogenesis/folliculogenesis does not take place.

Now, the original group of scientist who made the initial claim then responds to this abstract with another abstract of their own, called, Serious doubts over “Eggs Forever?” In this abstract the researchers categorically state:

While we agree with Byskov et al. that our work represents a radical departure from the age-old dogma that mammalian females permanently lose the capacity for oocyte and follicle production during the perinatal period, careful examination of all of the available data leaves no doubt that adult female mammals retain the capacity for oogenesis and folliculogenesis.

This means that menopause may be reversible. So, based upon this abstract, I will stick to my hypothesis that the key to all of this is a variable, multimale sperm cocktail regularly received into the vaginal cavity and that such a cocktail might actually take menopausal woman out of menopause and back into fertility, or, to use the scientific language, cause oogenesis and folliculogenesis. Here is the entire abstract:

A recent commentary in this journal by Byskov et al. (2005) claims that, despite published results from numerous independent lines of investigation from our laboratory and others, there does not “exist any evidence for neo-folliculogenesis in the adult mammalian ovary.” While we agree with Byskov et al. that our work represents a radical departure from the age-old dogma that mammalian females permanently lose the capacity for oocyte and follicle production during the perinatal period, careful examination of all of the available data leaves no doubt that adult female mammals retain the capacity for oogenesis and folliculogenesis. These findings do not change the fact that exhaustion of the oocyte pool occurs with advancing chronological age–a process responsible for driving the menopause in women–but rather question the basic mechanism underlying age-related ovarian failure. In this regard, studies of aging male mice have demonstrated that testicular atrophy is associated with a dramatic decline in the number, activity and quality of germline stem cells that maintain spermatogenesis during adulthood (Zhang et al., 2006). Therefore, to the contrary of the opinion of Byskov et al. that such a process would be “considered exceptional among stem cells,” it is certainly reasonable to hypothesize that a similar deterioration of female germline stem cell function underlies the decline in oocyte quality and the onset of ovarian failure in aging females. Further, while we accept that a departure from conventional thinking can take years to gain widespread acceptance, we feel this resistance to change should not be construed as the sole means to voice opinions about the validity of our data or the maturity of our principal conclusion.

Through the use of parabiosis in mice, aging-related deterioration of skeletal muscle and liver has been linked to a loss of systemic factors that support adult stem or progenitor cell activity. Since aging-related ovarian failure has recently been attributed, at least in part, to a loss of de-novo oocyte-containing follicle formation associated with declining oogonial stem cell activity, herein we tested in mice if aging-related changes in systemic factors influence the size of the ovarian follicle reserve. Ovaries of young (2-month-old) females parabiotically joined with young females for 5 weeks possess comparable numbers of healthy and degenerative (atretic) oocyte-containing follicles in their ovaries as those detected in non-parabiotic young females. Joining of young females with young males significantly increases follicle atresia without a net change healthy follicle numbers. Surprisingly, young females joined with aged (24-month-old) males exhibit a significant increase in the number of primordial follicles comprising the ovarian reserve, and this occurs without changes in follicle growth activation or atresia. Blood of aged males also induces ovarian expression of the germ cell-specific meiosis gene,Stimulated by retinoic acid gene 8 (Stra8), in ovaries of female parabionts, further supporting the conclusion that the observed changes in the follicle reserve of females joined with aged males reflect increased oocyte formation. Thus, factors in male blood exert dramatic effects on ovarian follicle dynamics, and aging males possess a beneficial systemic factor that significantly expands the ovarian follicle reserve in females through enhanced oogenesis.

The implications of the above abstract might be that the sperm cocktail must have variety not only in that the men who put their part into it are different than the last cocktail’s group of men, but that the men themselves ought to be of variable ages, young men, middle aged and old men. In other words, that the female reproductive system responds greatest when there is the greatest diversity and variety in the cocktail. Taking this even further (don’t you just love to speculate every once in awhile?), racial diversity may also engage the SSF and subsequent oogenesis and folliculogenesis to an even greater degree.

Some experiments that could be done using this working hypothesis: a monogamous mouse pair living alone as control; a polyandrous mouse arrangement with two or more (young) male mice and one female mouse living together so that the female mates with each mouse; a polyandrous mouse arrangement in which the female lives with all of the males but she is allowed to mate with only part of the group for one sexual period and then is allowed to mate with a different part of the group for the next sexual period, always with a rotation and mix-up so that no two succeeding sexual periods have the same “sperm cocktail.” A fourth group could be polyandrous like the third, except that each part of the group that mates with the female will consist of diverse ages: young, middle-aged and old. Then, we could see what kind of children result from these various mating strategies. Also, each of these mice in all of the various arrangements would be taken from monogamous lines, to see if sperm mutations are affected by any arrangement. For the third and fourth arrangements, it may be easier simply to make the ratio of males to the single female quite high, so high in fact that she is incapable of mating with all of the males in a given sexual period, thereby eliminating the need to herd her into one particular group of males (and away from the others) at a time.

Another aspect of this theory is where does inbreeding fit in? If sperm competition genetically upgrades the sperm of all sperm cocktail donors, and if an activated SSF routinely selects the genetically superior sperm from a variable sperm cocktail, would sexual relations with close relatives (inbreeding) pose the same risks of manifesting recessive or deleterious traits in offspring as the inbreeding found in monogamous or polygynous or polyandrous settings?

If the answer to that question is no, then this could explain why the children of Adam and Eve could inbreed without danger, by adopting a multihusband-multiwife model which allowed the women to sleep with multiple groups of husbands, regularly varied, so that the sperm cocktail was always different each sexually active period. The mouse experiment proposed above could test this out.

For example, models of hymenopteran offspring relatedness and number of mating partners suggest offspring heterogeneity increases steeply when the number of partners increases from one to five and sperm use is random (Page and Metcalf, 1982; see also Yasui, 1998).

I find the above number five quite significant. Five may be the basic husband group unit for minimum female fitness:

In contrast to Bateman’s principle, there is now increasing evidence that female fitness can depend on the number of mates obtained.

Generating an unlimited supply of human eggs and the prospect of reversing the menopause was made possible by a series of breakthroughs led by Professor Jonathan Tilly of Harvard.

In 2004 he astounded the world of reproductive biology by suggesting that there were active stem cells in the ovaries of mice that seemed capable of replenishing eggs throughout life.

For half a century, a dogma of reproductive biology was that women are born with their full complement of egg cells which they gradually lose through life until they run out when they reach the menopause.

“This age-old belief that females are given a fixed ‘bank account’ of eggs at birth is incorrect,” Professor Tilly said.

“In fact ovaries in adulthood are probably more closely matched to testes in adulthood in their capacity to make new germ cells, which are the special cells that give rise to sperm and eggs,“ he said.

”Over the past 50 years, all the basic science, all the clinical work and all the clinical outcome was predicated on one simple belief, that is the oocyte pool, the early egg-cell pool in the ovaries was a fixed entity, and once those eggs were used up they cannot be renewed, replenished or replaced,“ he added.

Last month, Professor Tilly published pioneering research showing that these stem cells exist in human ovaries and that they could be stimulated in the laboratory to grow into immature egg cells.

I think polyandry [and multiple sources of familiar sperm] may also act as an environmental cue of a stable rearing environment for the infant.

In order to maintain narrow hips for bipedal locomotion [while at the same time outsourcing expensive colon tissue in exchange for expensive cerebral tissue], humans shifted most of the critical gestation time when the brain goes through rapid development to the “womb” of the family. Essentially, physical development of organs and such takes place in utero — but neural development takes place in the tribe.

I know research has found that the timing of a girl’s first menstrual cycle can be influenced by how her father relates with her — essentially a bad home life tells the girl’s body to grow-up fast and find a husband [because the Dad is awful].

I wonder if there are such cues being sent by having multiple fathers — as a signal of a more secure home environment for mother and baby?

I have lived in two cultures where the girls can date very young and marriage can take place quite young also. I am a middle aged man (24 month old mouse). I notice that 11 to 14 year old girls are strongly attracted to me. I am good looking and very kind. But conventional thinking would have them be put off by the age difference. I am not being a meglomaniac or a dirty old man. It has been going on now for 3 years and I can see it clearly now. It is real they really are interested in me. True they are learning how to love and be loved by a man. But there is something very strong going on. They even feel jealousy if I spend time with other adult women.
For my part I had 4 daughters and never wanted them to be scarred by inappropriate sexual advances the way many young girls are. So I always treat these girls with love and respect. When they start getting 15 or so they will shift to boys their age and their progress will continue. But that shift is a society induced shame. They are made to feel foolish for being in love with such an old man.
But in light of the research mentioned in this post I see that there is a very real biological benefit they are responding to. The eggs decrease before birth, then again before puberty. But I believe this part of their bodies responding to a need. I never knew about it until reading the above research.
And there is no doubt that an older man who knows how to be kind and self sacrificing for woman is something a girl should learn about before she becomes sexually active. Then she won’t put up with the tendency of young men to be self centered in their relationship with women. If society did not push them away from older men then the younger men would have to be better since they could lose out on all the young women their age. It would be a powerful motivator for young men to wake up and treat the women right.
But in our mongamous and anti intimacy society young women (14 to 30) are subjected to programming which steers them toward young men many who are only interested in having sex and as soon as the woman is pregnant these young men will abandon them because they are pregnant. I have seen it repeatedly even within my extended family in these cultures. So you know it is wide spread.

After I came home from my mission, I had the hots for two women my age. I used to say I was “in love” with one of them and “in like” with the other one. Now, that might sound strange enough, but a short time later, I developed the hots for a third woman, this one twenty years my senior. The first two women were okay with my interest in them, but this third, older woman, would not stand for my attentions, because of the age difference. She did everything she could to pour cold water on my passions.

Now that you mentioned what you just wrote above, dyc4557, I wonder if my attractions to the older lady (who was at that time quite the looker) had something to do with a biological need? I now wonder just how common attractions to older people of the opposite sex are in young adults? I thought, at the time, that I was feeling something that those in my age group did not feel, but maybe many or even all of them also had such attractions? Maybe I was not unique, except that I actively pursued this older woman, whereas everyone else just swept the feelings under the rug?

Anyone that reads with an open mind and heart the book Sex at Dawn and then looks without guilt at their own desires will see how much truth there is in that book. Joseph Smith said, “If you don’t know God then you don’t know yourself.” But the full ramifications of that truth are never passed on through the LDS or any other church. I am not sure that Joseph himself knew how deep that truth goes.
Our natures are not in opposition to God’s way. The natural man quote from Mosiah 4 is misapplied so as to pervert the truth. And what do I base that statement on? This logical fact. If God created us to crave and in fact need and thrive with multiple sex partners for both sexes and yet He has forbidden the practice (polyandry or tribal plural marriage) then He has commanded us to deny the way He created us, such an act is all of the following: irrational, wasteful, cruel, stupid, unmerciful, unloving and a few more. God is none of these things and does none of these things. And this fact aside it is manifestly impossible for God (the whole collection of males and females who comprise the family of Gods in the exalted state) to be both our parents and yet be devoid of these same abilities and sexual proclivities.
And if a human disagrees with these axioms then they are not thinking rationally. Like my post on our devotion to the church notwithstanding all factual evidence pointing against it, they are closing their eyes to reality in favor of clinging to a belief.
But the point of making this blunt and unyielding statement is to prove how easily we can deny our nature and by this repression of our hearts and DNA we can and do shut down the functions of our body. The fact that our emotions and psyche produces profound effects upon our health is an well documented fact.
A Catholic woman I know explained very clearly how this repression is accomplished in practice. She was for sure taught this technique in here church. It is seen as an act of devotion to God. I explained that she as capable of loving more than one man just as I was capable of loving more than one woman. I was doing a little missionary work since I had explained that I loved her very much. She couldn’t deny that she knew I was a very loving person. And she couldn’t deny what she was feeling emanating from me towards her. But she is engaged to a man and so how does she deal with it?
She said our brain is higher than our hearts so we put our minds to rule over our heart. She know nothing of the left and right brain mind and heart duality. But I am sure the Satan inspired man that put that in her church knows all about it.
But not to fret too much. She has said she wants us to always and forever be close friends.
I am suggesting to you reader to start trusting your heart and not your mind. Listen to your heart and question strongly your mind.

It’s funny you mention Mosiah 4 and the natural man being an enemy to God. Just a couple of days ago I was in a conversation with a friend of mine and I was talking about this post and he brought up that scripture. Just as you stated, there is this belief that anything that is natural to man is of the devil. And thus, the sexatdawn research is believed (by him) to be of the devil, etc. I found that it was impossible for me to get anywhere in the subject because of this understanding of his. And thus, I was in the bonds of iniquity for even considering such things as I do consider. If you or Justin or any of the other contributors would like to take up this topic of what it means to be in a state of nature, as explained in Alma 41, or what the saying “the natural man is an enemy to God” means, I think it might be a helpful conversation for people, and perhaps they will begin to wrap their minds around these principles.

Continuing with my comment above (since my daughter rushed me off the computer before finishing my thought), if what is found in nature, or in the natural state, is considered by some to be evil, then I wonder why these same people say that homosexuality is evil because it is “the sin against nature”? Why does Paul make an appeal to nature as a support of the gospel? The opposite of evil is good, so, if nature is equated with evil, then something that is unnatural, or against nature, such as homosexuality, must be good, right?

This whole idea of rejecting the Sex at Dawn research because “we are not animals” (or bonobos, in this case), therefore, it has no application to humans, for humans are children of God, etc., must also reject all of science, for all of science is a study of what is found in the natural state. Also, if the (scriptural) natural state is said to be “carnal, sensual and devilish,” then the animals must be guilty of sin, right? Yet, I wasn’t aware that the devil could tempt animals.

All of these absurd conclusions must be arrived at when holding to a nature=evil belief. Surely, this is not what the scriptures are talking about. I suppose it can be succinctly summarized in this way: the natural state is a “my will be done, not thy will” whereas the changed nature, or the nature of God, is a “thy will be done, not my will.” This is all the scriptures mean by the natural man being an enemy to God. It doesn’t mean that our desires to have sex are intrinsically evil. It doesn’t mean that since we have desires for sex and the animals also have desires for sex, that our desires are “animalistic.” In fact, the opposite viewpoint could also be expressed, namely that the animals were made “like unto us” since they have desires for sex as we do! So, we are not animalistic, but the animals in this point are “human-like.” So, it is not our desires that are evil, nor the desires of the animals, but how we act on those desires. For the animals, God has given them free reign to act on their desires in any manner they choose, according to their instinct, which was given to them by God. For man, God has given us a set of guidelines, to act on our desires according the commandments He gives, and the principles He has revealed, that the acting on our desires may be accounted unto us for righteousness. The desires themselves are not evil, or devilish, but come from God.

The natural man and the man of Christ both have the same desires, or carnal inclinations, but one acts selfishly, according to his own will, while the other acts selflessly, according to the will of God. The carnal inclinations, though, are not evil, for the righteous man still gets to express those inclinations in the prescribed manner that God has given him. Anyway, I don’t want to make this comment a whole post, but I just think that the words “nature” and “natural,” as found in the scriptures, needs to fully expounded to people’s understanding.

The fallacy of conflating “natural man” with anything “natural” — is the same as taking the term “sexual relations” and using it to mean any “relations” that are in any sense of the word “sexual”.

“Natural man” is itself a single scriptural term, as a total unit — and is not just the combination of the meanings of the two words “natural” + “man”.

LDSA — you mentioned Alma 41, which says:

therefore
all things
shall be restored
to their proper order
every thing
to its natural frame

I guess I should just spend the time to put all this into a post — but there’s also Romans 1:

for this cause
god gave them up unto vile affections
for even their women did change the natural use
into that which is against nature
and likewise also the menleaving the natural use of the woman
burned in their lust one toward another
men with men
working that which is unseemly
and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error
which was meet

and which also speaks of parental love and devotion to one’s children as “natural affection“.

Thus — I’d say that the “natural man” refers to the carnal, sensual, and devilish state of mankind when they are in a lost and fallen state — with sin conceived in their hearts, being led captive by the spirit of the devil.

That is not the natural [as in proper, or by design] state of mankind. Meaning, it’s not how we were put onto this earth operate.

Ok. I have joked a few times about how difficult it probably was for men to accept plural marriage. “You want me to have a bunch of wives? Oh noooo! That’s so haaard!” and every time I hear a (polygamous) man say how difficult it is I think, “about as difficult as getting another washing machine. I mean, ya, I will have to make a little extra room but 2 washing machines would be freaking awesome!”

Now I am actually putting myself in the position of what I thought was only an option for men(multiple spouses)and I’m not gonna lie, it would be pretty cool. Not that I’m quite sold yet but you have given a lot of persuasive evidence. Of course I’ve also read a lot of persuasive “evidence” that Joseph Smith never even practiced plural marriage etc…I’m sure you all know what I’m referring to. So even with all the evidence, and my “natural” desire that it be true I am yet again placed in the position of having to ask God for enlightenment on the matter.

I do have a couple of thoughts. When I was a young teen I had the hugest crush on a much older man(probably early 40’s) I would day dream about him all the time! If he had known how interested I was he probably would have pursued me. Luckily he never did find out. At that young age I never thought anything would be wrong with marrying him. As an adult(having married into a polygamous family)I have witnessed the marriage of a few very young girls to an old man. I mean old as in 65-70. The girls ranged in age from 14 to 18. Totally freaking grossed me out! I could not stand it. I couldn’t help looking at this man as a pedophile. The wives are all older now and besides the 2 that left him they claim to be so happy. Maybe they are. I’ll tell you what though when one of them(who I’m fairly close to)starts talking about her sex life I have to force myself to think about fields of daisies because I promise if I think about this naked 70 something year old man I may vomit. I can also say the same about a very young man. I would not be attracted to someone very young. My sons are young and I would probably equate any younger men with them. Yep, I’m afraid if I were to live polyandry I wouldn’t be able to get the variety required because I am too picky and superficial. And I challenge you to find a woman who’s not(well picky anyway). I do think women are a little more so than men, but please correct me if I’m wrong.

I loved the defining of “natural man” being an enemy to God, and really appreciate it. It would be cool to see a whole post on it but I think you covered it quite satisfactorily.

One more thing…LDSA your mother is awesome. But heaven forbid any woman giving birth every 10 months for 833 years! Holy cow, if that was the case and I was Eve I probably would have invented the Catholic Church and become a nun. It’s all fun and games until someone gets pregnant. A thousand times! Lol…

One more thing…LDSA your mother is awesome. But heaven forbid any woman giving birth every 10 months for 833 years!

Obviously, those were just invented numbers, using the animal kingdom as a template. In other words, if animals are capable of giving birth to young on a yearly basis, without any apparent bodily breakdown on the female’s part, surely humans ought to be able to do the same. If the original human bodies were as well adapted to their condition as the animals are currently to their own condition, then giving birth every 10 months may have been quite easy and “natural” for Eve and her daughters. In fact, the plight of women today giving birth may be an entirely unnatural condition. It may be that whereas the animals still know how to recover their bodies after birth, because their instincts are still intact after all these years, humans have somehow lost the knowledge of correct birthing and recovery practices. Without a proper recovery, even animals can’t handle the birthing process.

It’s not entirely a physical thing though. Having a lot of babies close together can be very emotionally and mentally challenging as well. For myself as well as all of my sisters and my mom, as long as we breastfeed we don’t ovulate at all. So I nursed all of my babies for about 18 months. I, personally believe that that is more how it should be. I do have a lot of friends with a lot of children close in age though. My mom in law had 17 and handled it like a champ! Both physically and emotionally. I would probably have to be stuck in a rubber room or something. Maybe my capacity isn’t as big because I’m selfish and have so many things I want to do that always being pregnant or having a baby would make my own pursuits difficult. That would be an interesting topic to cover. Is it un-Goddess like to not desire oodles of babies? I heard one anti-Mormon say, “You think heaven is being eternally pregnant? Well you can have it!”
I’m just thinking of this earth life though. I wonder how our attitude about and willingness to have kids will affect our afterlife. The family I married into totally believes you have as many as you can. No birth control in any form. Sometimes I feel like I have to defend myself for not having more than I do. But at the same time I do tend to judge those who choose to not have children or only have a couple. Hmmm interesting.

For myself as well as all of my sisters and my mom, as long as we breastfeed we don’t ovulate at all. So I nursed all of my babies for about 18 months. I, personally believe that that is more how it should be.

That’s the only form of birth control we’ve used and all of our children are spaced ~2 years apart. Though some women’s cycles aren’t as sensitive to lactational amenorrhea — or else their nursing habits don’t mirror “ecological breastfeeding“.

There is a wide range of diversity in the personality/make-up of women — both in how their bodies work physically and how they feel emotionally — when it comes to having children.

That’s why I think getting back to the multihusband-multiwife tribe [where there are a plurality of different body types and personality/emotional types] as the standard for a human family is very beneficial.

One woman shouldn’t feel the burden to “love tons of kids” if she doesn’t feel that way. Should her husband desire “tons of kids” — then they should be free to add a plural wife to their family to fulfill that righteous desire. Instead — all the weight and strain is placed on the shoulders of one wife, which isn’t fair to her.

At the same time — some women might not desire “tons of kids” [emotionally] because, as an example, their family is of humble means and she doesn’t feel right raising them in poverty. Biologically, she might be capable of having dozens — but she worries that it’d place too much strain on her one husband to provide for that family [or else she’d feel like she had to be a working mother to have two incomes].

If she were, instead, to have plural husbands — those emotional concerns wouldn’t be of issue any longer, and she could freely express her biological prerogative.

True LDSA. But I’ll bet they all read everything here. I think it is a very real thing that people are conditioned to deny and repress the sexual urges part of themselves. And this conditioning comes through the false traditions of our churches who are in bed with Babylon.
Take liv435’s comment. She explains how she was strongly attracted to an older man when she was near puberty. And then some years later she thinks the thought of old men and young girls is gross, and this even with the witness of the girls as a positive.
The former we now see is part of her DNA, her nature. And the latter going contrary to actual reliable reports must come from societal programming.
I can relate. There is a strong anti fat bias in the US culture at least. I have some belly fat. If I get thin enough to lose it I have real problems sitting for more than 15 minutes because my gluteus maximus is quite thin by genetics. So I have accepted that I have a small spare tire. I think it looks ugly. Where I live now it only makes sense to go around without a shirt most of the time. At home many many men do here.
And yet the women here do not think I am unpleasant to look at. Actually the opposite. Their 30 something husbands have bodies to die for if you think slim looks good. I have realized that my kindness and my face which looks nice is enough for them to really find me attractive. It has helped me overcome some of my programming.

Hey LDSA,
I put away my VD fears and totally touched this post. With like a TWO foot pole. Give credit man!

Dyc,
I have to come back and clarify. I wasn’t necessarily saying that I don’t find older men attractive. On the contrary! I always liked older men. I think the absolute best looking actors are the older ones. I have actually never been super attracted to younger men. What I meant by my post was the association of this man with pedophile is what grossed me out. And that was because of how young the girls were. Also, sad to say, but this particular man does look somewhat like a cross between a goat and a potato:/ but hey, maybe if I liked him and respected him he would look better? Maybe I was wrong in calling women superficial. That was probably the wrong word. Women are just harder to please. Men, I think, could be happily married to so many different types of women and freely give themselves easily. Whereas women, IMO, would need to be attracted on multiple levels in order to give themselves freely to any husband. That’s just my take. I could be wrong and am finding out that I am wrong quite often. I have thought men were very good looking clear up until I got to know them and suddenly they didn’t look so good and vice versa. Also I’m not exactly the best one to judge what most women find attractive I mean I wanted to marry Michael Jackson from the age of 8 to 18.:P

Thanks for the clarification liv435. I don’t know you personally but even if I did it would be impossible to judge what most women need in a man before they enter into a marriage relationship. To be sure they need to be somewhat selective.
Also I liked your comment Justin o how multiple husbands would really make for so many possibilities.
But to both Justin and liv435 and everyone I say it is so hard to fashion the ideal model in this world of money and separateness of hearts perpetrated by monogamy. The amount of waste that everyone must have their own. In the examples of Zion like societies we hear this, “there were no poor because there were no rich.” I now live among people who often have very little. And yet the circumstances make it so they can survive on very little. But they listen to the radio and watch TV also so they too are programmed as consumers (read as people who always spend all their means for some reason unknown to themselves).
So even though I am not living in a Zion the circumstances and the structure of the society is close enough in some aspect that I can readily see how a tribal multi spouse family can not only work but can come about very easily and naturally. The biggest obstacle is the false teachings about our natures which is viw the media,school and religions.
But if you start sharing your food and kitchen and eating and working together and sleeping in close proximity and pooling your money toward a common goal and having multiple adults caring for the children, then things just begin to move toward the multispouse tribe.
When you work with someone to accomplish a shared goal, and when you both love the same children, they love yours and you love theirs and you all eat together whenever possible then it is pretty natural to fall in love with your sister in law and for her to love you back. Jealousy comes from fears and possessiveness. And that all comes from a scarcity mindset rather than seeing the never ending supply of love available to those who are willing to share.

well i find it fascinating that the biblical record of Abraham and Sarah and the three mystery men seems to support this scientific evidence and visa versa. i wonder if the original records were even more plain and precious…or explicit like this post. I think that people, both male and female are really uncomfortable with polyandry…and i think that this cuases many social ills that will not be cured till this particular situation is remedied. It is sad to me.

Oh, man, Chantdown, I’m speechless. Right now I feel like one of those kings that “shall shut their mouths”…”for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.”

Yeah that idea of the three angels was discussed with Chandown and I on the back channel. As I understand it the old testament the word angel means messenger. So in reality these messengers could be men even like home teachers. And it occured to me how odd that there were three angels. I don’t know of any other instance where more than one angel was required to deliver a message. So maybe these home teachers were doing real good home teaching. But if the truth were known all the LDS would just as Joseph Smith said, “If the Church knew all the commandments, one half they would condemn through prejudice and ignorance.”

So if they knew that there is a commandment to have more than one wive they would condemn through ignorance. But that is only half the commandment. The other half is that all women should have more than one husband. But the church condemns even just the first half.
Funny how exact are truly prophetic utterances.

That is the truth people condemn even the first half and therefore never even know the second half.

Okay, so Abraham is having a visit from the Lord, (a Personage of Spirit), when three (physical) angels suddenly appear. These three angels were (apparently) translated men (though they may have been mortal men) and not the spirits of just men made perfect, because Abraham gives them food, drink, rest and has them washed. (Remember, this occurred prior to the resurrection of Christ, therefore these were not resurrected beings.) So, apparently, the presence of the (Spirit of the) Lord was not enough and the presence of three physically embodied, (possibly) translated men was needed. In other words, their physical bodies were needed for the occasion, for some reason. I also find Sarah’s words about her having pleasure curious. Here is the full text of Genesis 18:1-24, from the Inspired Version (the JST):

and the lord appeared unto abraham in the plains of mamre |

and he sat in his tent door in the heat of the day |

and he lifted up his eyes and looked | and lo | three men stood by him |

and when he saw | he ran to meet them from his tent door | and bowed himself toward the ground | and said |

my brethren | if now i have found favor in your sight | pass not away | i pray you | from thy servant |

let a little water | i pray you | be fetched | and wash your feet | and rest yourselves under the tree | and i will fetch a morsel of bread | and comfort ye your hearts |

after that you shall pass on | for therefore are ye come to your servant |

and they said |

so do | as thou hast said |

and abraham hastened into the tent unto sarah | and said |

make ready quickly three measures of fine meal | knead | and make cakes upon the hearth |

and abraham ran unto the herd | and fetched a calf | tender and good | and gave it unto a young man | and he hasted to dress it | and he took butter and milk | and the calf | which he had dressed | and set them before them | and he stood by them under the tree | and they did eat |

and they said unto him |

where is sarah | thy wife |

and he said |

behold | in the tent |

and one of them blessed abraham | and he said |

i will certainly return unto thee from my journey | and lo | according to the time of life | sarah | thy wife | shall have a son |

and sarah heard him in the tent door |

and now | abraham and sarah | being old and stricken in age | therefore | it had ceased to be with sarah after the manner of women | therefore | sarah laughed within herself | saying |

after i have waxed old shall i have pleasure | my lord being old also |

and the angel of the lord said unto abraham |

wherefore did sarah laugh | saying |

shall i of a surety bear a child | which am old |

is anything too hard for the lord |

at the time appointed | behold | i will return unto thee from my journey | which the lord hath sent me | and | according to the time of life | thou mayest know | that sarah shall have a son |

then sarah denied | saying |

i laughed not |

for she was afraid |

and he said |

nay | but thou didst laugh |

and the angels rose up from thence | and looked toward sodom | and abraham went with them to bring them on the way |

and the angel of the lord said |

shall i hide from abraham that thing | which the lord will do for him | seeing that abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation | and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him |

for i know him | that he will command his children | and his household after him | and they shall keep the way of the lord | to do justice and judgment | that the lord may bring upon abraham that | which he has spoken of him |

and the angel of the lord said unto abraham |

the lord said unto us |

because the cry of sodom and gomorrah is great | and because their sin is very grievous | i will destroy them |

and i will send you | and ye shall go down now | and see | that their iniquities are rewarded unto them |

and ye shall have all things done altogether according to the cry of it | which is come unto me |

and if ye do it not | it shall be upon your heads | for i will destroy them | and you shall know | that i will do it | for it shall be before your eyes |

and the angels | which were holy men | and were sent forth after the order of god | turned their faces from thence | and went toward sodom | but abraham stood yet before the lord | remembering the things | which had been told him |

and now
abraham and sarah
being old and stricken in age
therefore
it had ceased to be with sarah after the manner of women

The “manner” or “custom” of women refers to their menstrual cycle. So it’s saying Sarah already went through menopause.

therefore
sarah laughed within herself
sayingafter i have waxed old shall i have pleasure
my lord being old also?

Though I guess she may be suggesting that her and Abraham do not have sexual pleasure [she may be insinuating that Abraham’s age has left him impotent] — I had imagined that this was the pleasure of fulfilling her “purpose” [which at that time consisted of conceiving a son for her husband’s family line] — which I think is supported by the angel’s remark that:

and the angel of the lord said unto abraham
wherefore did sarah laugh sayingshall i of a surety bear a child
which am old?

Meaning her “pleasure” had to do with fulfilling her “womanly” role for that culture [bearing a son] — not so much to do with the physical pleasure of having sex.

That is how I have always interpreted it, also, but in light of Chantdown’s comment, I’m wondering if there may be a dual meaning to her words.

For example, (and I’m not saying that this is actually what went down, so, please, anyone who reads my words, don’t take this as the gospel), Abraham may have been impotent and these three men, entering into covenants with her, as her additional husbands, and they not being impotent, would have been able to pleasure her sexually, for the first time in perhaps many years for her, activating her SSF and making her fertile again, which triple sperm cocktail may have also re-activated Abraham’s sexual organ, as sperm competition is now in play, so that now he was able to make love to his wife once again. So, with the sperm of four men in her, she would become pregnant with Abraham’s seed, for his sperm would be chosen, thus also getting the pleasure of having a child in her old age.

Of particular note is that one of these angelic beings states categorically that he is going to return, while the others do not state this. Perhaps there is some sort of permanent husband (the returning angel) and temporary concubinage (the non-returning angels taking her as a concubine, or temporary wife) relationship going on?

As I have lived I have tried to deal with what I was desiring mostly by denying what was in my heart since I was being told it was evil. As I read Sex at Dawn it all makes sense. But I know that unless I was prayed for by Chantdown and was told by the Lord after fasting to trust in my heart and then began adopting that I never would have believed the words of that book.
Yeah mostly we sweep things under the rug.

Wow…LDSA, I read some other translation and didn’t even think to check out the JST…As I read the other translation I just thought about what you had noticed with the Book of Abraham…and not that I detected multiple authors or anything just that the diferent scribes were loosing a lot in translation…occulting things they did not agree with and perhaps interpreting things according to their disbelief…where as Joseph was more of a believer, believing all things.
Now as I read this I can totally see and feel that it is not just a hunch but a gem of knowledge hidden from the view of the world but clear as day to those who believe.

Hey guys, I will be reading the article and posting in a bit. My best friend is the one that you folks would know as Hell-Raising Love Monster. He and I have been discussing the article here even though I did not read it yet. We have been talking about the circles referenced by Joseph Smith (and a 3.5 year “experiment”), as well as a group of 5 men (fathers) who would form a union. The 5 men would serve the group in accord with the 5 archetypes or “elements” of chinese medicine. So,I’d like to have a private side conversation with LDS Anarchist, DYC4557, and Zo-ma-rah. Email me at 144jr144@gmail.com or thru https://www.facebook.com/jrfibonacci

OK, I just read the article and several of the first few comments. Apparently, no one here has any particular doubts about the science. We just wonder about social implications, like as it relates to fertile females under a certain age or other logistics. What would happen with children? What kind of living arrangements would work? How would the individuals represent themselves to society, especially in relation to being parents of children? Will the women be “sheltered” by a group of men, at least during pregnancy? Will women who are “serviced” in this way be like Queens with immense influence, attracting prosperity? A group of people who are openly operating like this might experience shunning, like unhappy couples may be threatened (even if deeply attracted) by the presence of a social movement that presents an open rejection of “traditional monogamous marriage,” though a subculture in the US of “free love” certainly had many practitioners, at least within a certain age range or generation. How much seclusion and how much integration would there be with “industrial society?” Would a remote rural setting work best, or an urban setting where “no one else would barely even notice?”

I don’t know if these are addressed to LDSA, or to anyone — but I’ll answer your questions according to my understanding of the GEMTAM.

What would happen with children?

Children are accounted as the offspring of their mother — and then each husband takes to covenant obligation to provide for the maintenance of each of his wives and her children.

What kind of living arrangements would work?

Obviously, common tribal lands would be most advisable — but I could envision separately housed family couples, sharing time and parenting duties together [despite the separate living arrangements].

How would the individuals represent themselves to society, especially in relation to being parents of children?

If they want to maintain the appearance of monogamy — then I would imagine that referring only to their one legally married spouse as “my wife/husband“, and her kids as “your kids“. But, to each their own on that one.

Will the women be “sheltered” by a group of men, at least during pregnancy?

The woman will have a quorum of husbands — each having taken a covenant obligation to provide for her maintenance for as long as they live — and I would say especially during pregnancy.

Will women who are “serviced” in this way be like Queens with immense influence, attracting prosperity?

Don’t quite know what you’re getting at here — or what you’re trying to find out…

A group of people who are openly operating like this might experience shunning, like unhappy couples may be threatened (even if deeply attracted) by the presence of a social movement that presents an open rejection of “traditional monogamous marriage,” though a subculture in the US of “free love” certainly had many practitioners, at least within a certain age range or generation. How much seclusion and how much integration would there be with “industrial society?”

I’d expect a majority of “shunning”/”eye-brow raising” — while a certain group may be drawn to it “in theory” but who aren’t interested in terms of practice — while the rest would like to jump on board.

Certainly — the whole reason for the state’s persecution of the LDS in the 1840’s was in direct response to the threat that both the principles of plural marriage families and economic consecration.

The law of stewardship represented a complete independence from the power of the state — and “icky plural wives” was just the excuse used to drum-up popular support for trouncing religious freedom of worship.

Would a remote rural setting work best, or an urban setting where “no one else would barely even notice?”

Again — I could see both [to each their own].

Personally, I’d prefer the privacy and space of a rural homestead with some acreage between my business and other man’s business — but I’d see no reason why an urban wouldn’t work [they are often more liberal communities — and might be more accepting than rural neighbors anyway].

jrfibonacci Sorry I took so long to answer.
Justins comments are the same as I would say. He wasn’t sure what you meant by this question:

Will women who are “serviced” in this way be like Queens with immense influence, attracting prosperity?

I think I may have made a statement in a comment or one of my posts which related to that.
In one way they would have an influence as no monogamous or polygynous woman ever could.
In another way they would have no power.
I wrote a very long comment which I will send to your email.
But here suffice it to say that in a true order of plural marriage no man or woman would have power to manipulate or coerce their partners. That is the traditional way womenof the world have wielded great power.

But in the only true and perfect influence which is love unfeigned they would wield great power. And it would influence for good not just one man but a whole group of men.
Prosperity in such a union I believe would exceed anything we know about now. Perhaps with as little as 5 men and women but even better if there were say at least 10 or each I can envision a group which would be free of the powers of the world. Zero mortgages alone would place them in such security. And if they were willing to be ina more remote place and live without fiat money they would have prosperity such that their work week would be less than 20 hours a week.
As I say I will email you thew long version.
But let me add here it was a King of one of the earliest Babylonian kingdoms which passed the law on pain of death to the woman who would dare to have more than one husband. There can be only one reason for this action. He and his master Satan wanted to destroy a way of living which would rob them of all their power.

Thank you very much, Justin and DYC. DYC, the reference to a Queen was not in relation to the men of the plural marriage, but in relation to the “common people” including women of the mainstream.

Would a woman with such radiance from her ovaries to her aura be powerful in terms of modern commercial activity? I do not have contempt for modern commerce or the internet or the kings of Babylon. I also am not asking about the issue of Queens from fear- like that “our women NEED to be RULERS so that I (and the other men) will be SAVED,” but asking with a curiosity.

Contempt is not holy. However, contempt may occasionally arise amongst human behavior and we can respect the trends of hysterical contempt emerging in politics and social psychology, perhaps with the systematic encouragement of certain propaganda interests.

But that is trivia. The next thing is essential:

There is only one power and the power of that single inclusive almighty Unity is uncontested, for all powers derive from that Power. Yes, rules to discourage (or execute) plural marriages are not to be disrespected (even if violated). Legal systems of organized coercion and involuntary wealth redistribution through monopolized extortion taxation rackets are a real practical issue, as is economics and ecology and physiology and so on.

I am a forecaster of economic trends with extensive history of presenting advance explanations of the major developments of the last several years. Indeed, a rise in hysteria and anger and blame and contempt are developing in Western civilization and were also predictable given what I saw developing in social psychology and economics (a massive global deflation of credit, which I detailed in 2003, as well as a spiking of fuel prices, which I detailed in 2004). See http://www.oneeyedkingswealthclub.com

I have also written a lot lately about the peril of contempt as distinct from momentary anger, providing a slight re-translation of Matthew 5:22. The latest one begins with this translation of ancient Hebrew in to English:

“Take notice, those of you who grapple with Divinity, that the Eternal Living Presence, who is our God, is the one [and only] Being…. So, respect each creation of God as a creation of God: each organism, each perception, each form of God as a form of God.”

You may or may not recognize these words as the first two commandments of the Hebrew tradition. That is a little more about me and the priorities that are arising for me.

So why don’t you explain why you would see it as contempt or equate it with a failure to see God in all to identify as wrong the contempt which this ancient Babylonian ruler showed against women who loved more than one man.Or were you just looking for an opportunity to share your personal revelations regarding the concept of contempt and in your zeal to share end up sharing it in a conflictive and ironically contemptful manner?

Okay jrfibonacci
You said “Yes, rules to discourage (or execute) plural marriages are not to be disrespected (even if violated).”

My spiritual beliefs are that an unjust law is null and void in the eyes of God. Whether a person can disregard such laws without being imprisoned or having money taken from them at the point of the gun varies with the circumstance.

So if you mean we should not have contempt meaning we should not always flat out disobey the evil laws of society then I agree.
But that makes no sense with the statement you made. If we violate them then by action we have contempt. But if we feel it is best to agree with our adversary and pay the tax then surely we must retain or have contempt in our heart and minds for that law. Jesus did pay the temple tax but He retained his contempt for the law of men which was being enforced upon him.
But you have said we should not have contempt for the law or rules etc. Now again I give possible explanation for this unreasonable assertion you have made. I do not think we should have contempt for human beings or animals or plants. They are all part of God. But a law which says men in group X have authority over men in group Y to determine if and when those in group Y are in fact legally married, such a law should not be respected even if we are forced to obey or suffer consequences which destroy the good that we should place as a higher priority.
Your thoughts on the blog you linked are also flawed. You say “As for monogamy, it is a natural preference for reproduction within any species with such a long gestation period as humans.” False. The Bobono monkey has zero monogamy type relations and their gestation is 8 1/2 months. The blog is even mixed up on what is polygyny and polyandry.

I will cut to the chase.
I don’t have respect for your reasoning. It sounds exactly like an encouragement to remain a slave to a world controlled by men and spirits who do not love us as humans nor God our father. So I will not be sending any emails. I feel you have been baiting those of us here on this blog. I will not take the bait.

Elder Chantdown, perhaps someone experiences contempt and then takes some action as part of that experience of contempt. Perhaps it is from contempt that a king might give a public notice (called a law or commandment or whatever) that his bureaucracy will be punishing women who perform certain activities without the king’s permission or whatever.

What concern might I have for the contempt of another? I might mirror it with further contempt. I might respect their contempt as nothing other than contempt- just noticing it for what it is until I notice something else, such as if the contempt shifts to some other pattern of energy.

I might fear contempt. I might condemn it. I might agree with it and say “yes, king, that vile woman named Eve (or Lilith) has violated the sacred rules of God and therefore absolutely must be killed in a ritual human sacrifice for being” a witch or a Christian or a Protestant or a Mormon or an escaped slave or a Socialist or whatever label I might have contempt for, of which I may be terrified, hysterical, mentally ill, mad, insane.

Do you have contempt for insanity? Do you have contempt for a child who does not know how to spell the word hypocrite? Do you have contempt for a 5 year-old who has contempt for a 4 year-old who has contempt for a 3 year-old?

If you do not know the relevantion of God from within your own heart in relation to the subject matter of contempt, you might question someone whom you trust as wise. Or, you might consult the book of Ecclesiastes which references things like a time for war and a time for truce, also a time for love and a time for hate, even a time for contempt and a time for dignity.

Violence is not contempt. Violence is just violence. Only contempt is contempt. Study matthew 5:22 if you do not know the Will of God within you, leading to a reliance on oral scriptures written and translated and so on.

If you fear Satan, perhaps you lack faith in God. I have no disdain for those who fear Satan, but even compassion. They know not what they do.

Imagine that I am sitting in a chair right now. Federal law courts may claim to criminalize sitting in a chair. State law courts may claim to protect my right to sit in a chair. Some other group may say that the federal law courts are illegitimate and their law court (or mafia) has authority over my sitting in a chair and I am fully entitled to sit in a chair as long as I am authorized by the rulers to do so, represented by a small and entirely voluntary donation, in the absence of which I will be swiftly executed.

While that paragraph a bit complex in a way, too, it points to the simplicity of the issue regarding laws formed with words. It is possible for a controversy between laws of words. With those laws, it is possible for conflicting counter-claims, constitutionality arguments and jurisdiction appeals and procedural questions.

I respect all of that. The fact is that in this very moment, I might be accused (even rightly so) of violating thousands of laws made of words… and that is something of which I am aware without fear. I have no contempt for the occupation of lawyers and extortionists and thugs and tax collectors and lobbyists and thieves.

I invite you to consider the first commandment of the Hebrew tradition: “Take heed, ye who grapple with the Boundless, Eternal, Almighty Authority, that the Supreme Being is complete, inclusive, holy, all-encompassing, all-pervasive, omni-present, omni-scient, and the one and only being. There is no other Power but the single Power.”

If you do not understand Hebrew, then you may have little choice but to consider a few different translations of the Hebrew in to English. Ultimately, there may be a sequence of words that you recognize directly from your own experience as consistent with your experience. If the Revelation of God is within your heart, then no Hebrew words are needed for you to recognize what you can directly recognize as clear.

You may prefer to debate over realize the activity of the Will of God. It is normal to be afraid and, as the Hebrews say, “grapple” with the subject matter quite a bit. By the way, do you know what the ancient Hebrew word Israel means? I am not referencing some assocation that you may have made with those six letters, but the word as used many thousands of yeears ago. What did Jacob mean when he said Israel? What did Isaiah mean when he said Israel? What did Jesus mean when he quoted Isaiah and Jacob and so on?

DYC, I am not a student of the Bonobo species. Amongst human societies, there are numerous cultures throughout the world in which some form of mongamy (including serial monogamy) is practiced by very large portions of the population. This may have been the case for much of the last 10,000 years if not much longer.

When a species has a long gestation period as well as long infancy of functional dependence- which may indeed be the more relevant issue- than there may be a greater tendency for women (and grandparents) to encourage mating with men who are expected to economically provide for the well-being of his offspring for as many as two years or even as many as two decades,

For anyone interested, here are some related posts of mine, with the first one more directly addressing the issue of the institution of marriage, and the traditions of asking permission of an authority (such as the father of the bride) for a license to marry the bride:

Your blog is also a little more coherent. But never have you come through as clearly as in your comments here. Non resistance and transmutation is definitely where its at. But don’t be so quick to judge though. You may have been using one word in one way while others understood it to hold a slightly different meaning for themselves personally. Human language definitely can present challenges. Your first comments came across a bit jumbled. But I understand now. This is what, ironically, DyC and I were discussing the other day. DyC may have been very hasty in his judgements of you as well. I detect much sincerity but also I can see you assuming and placing me and others into the category of those who fear Satan. You have no real knowledge of our dealings with such things but feel it safe to assume that we fall in the category of indeed the bulk of the world’s population. But if you would pause for a moment and allow the truthfulness of your own words and the scriptures which you have incorporated within your own being to catch up with your thought then you might see that through your more or less recently gained insights you have fairly quickly been led to and attracted to yourself, those of a similar caliber and vibration. In other words give the benefit of the doubt to those to whom you would reach out in any capacity whether as teacher or student. Remember that the two are connected and everything is everything. Learn to be pleasantly surprised upon meeting manifestations of the self same knowledge, wisdom and understandings of the self same topics and inner and outer views developing within yourself in ….others. This is expecting the unexpected and it is simultaneously the way of the already anciently wise and the fresh exciting path of the seeker of wisdom.

Basically put. You do not know exactly where DyC may find himself along the path of learning. You may speak of this bigger picture understanding of the laws of man which enables you and anyone to retain calm in mind and body. But how can you be sure that DyC does not have more first hand knowledge of these things on one level or another than do you at this time possess. Would it not be safe to assume that a man who seeks and attains knowledge as your self would not only be led to link up with individuals who he can teach but also that those same individuals will have valuable and severely lacking gems of knowledge to help him. Just because you or I can put a word on it and we may feel ourselves much tickled and enlightened by etymology and such…does not mean that we can not learn much from the first hand grappling that someone like DyC has done. We all do much grappling. We must allow ourselves to be helped by one another if we are to keep the grappling within beneficial bounds and not overdo it to the expense of our allowing God to inhabit our beings and truly learn sorely needed life lessons.

Now I know that the invitation you made does not concern me. But it does raise an interesting side note which I would like to seek your help in clarifying for me. I noticed that you mentioned how you wanted to bring to your proposed ritual experiment a correspondence to the 5 chineese elements. There are many paths and I have not felt led to study very deeply the chineese paths. But I have wondered why they list metal and wood among their breakdown of the elements when to me it seems redundant. To my mind it makes more sense to think of it in terms of Earth, Air, Fire, Water and Spirit. But lately I had been wondering about that…so maybe you could shed some light on it for me. Is it merely a breakdown or like subcategories of Earth or what?

Okay this much I agree with. Contempt is not useful but is of the ego. When my ego sees what is happening in the world it wants to blame the Powers That wanna Be for making miserable, most of the other aspects of myself in this world. The problem with blame is that I thereby make it real. If I think someone is trying to hurt me, this is indicative of my belief that I deserve punishment. Since I now fully understand that I do not and I do energy work daily to release our ancient belief in guilt, I notice that where my now much more-
peaceful mind takes me is into actions which benefit all of us – even the black hearts. They also will ultimately be better off when the rest of us wake up. I intend not to fight them or even to make them
particularly miserable; my intention is to do what works for me and any other aspect of myself who happens to know that resistance only causes the persistence of a situation. It gives it energy. I use my energy to get what I want, not to stop anyone else from having what my ego doesn’t want them to have.

So in that way contempt is not beneficial. But neither is any form of agreement with the false reality perpetrated upon the world by those who have nothing to offer.

Thank you for your reply. My comment will focus on a rather small portion of it.

Within reality, one aspect of reality is words. Words are not literally a false reality, but the real reality of words, including word phrases like “unreal reality” and “false reality” and “real unreality.”

Words can form “nonsense.” I like to point out that the term “literal interpretation” is a bit silly. Indeed, to take a metaphor literally is to entirely misunderstand it.

Justin quoted many comments ago the phrase “in the manner of women” in reference to menstruation or menopause. Words are code, symbols for something other than the actual sequence of sounds or letters. For someone who does not know the code, then the raw code is mysterious, undecoded or undecodeable.

With language, there can be issues of comprehending precise medical terminology and presumptions and translation and also the audience for a particular communication. We may speak very differently to a 4 year-old and an 8 year-old and a 12 year-old.

As I noted, I think that there is a place for anger and rebuke, and of course since there is such a thing as contempt, we could even say that “there is a place for it” (as there is “for all things under heaven”).
We can respect it and admit that we have experienced it.

Regarding how many realities there are, this one has a long audio commentary and in the concluding paragraphs of the blog, I feature this sequence:

”
>
In the beginning, reality spoke language in to existence. Language was with reality, within reality, and of reality. Language was not separate from reality.
>

Compare the simplicity of that statement with the common mistranslations of John 1:1. It is through a fundamental confusion about language that naive people can innocently but foolishly or vainly believe in a schizophrenic or broken reality.

Reality cannot be broken. There is nothing except reality, so there is nothing to break it.

God cannot be divided. There is nothing except God, so there is nothing to divide God. Even language (Logos) is an aspect of reality, of God, of the branching of the living process of the eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent One.
”

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. As for the 5 elements and how 5 different people may offer various qualities and contributions, I have little to say specifically. Certainly, there may be contributions that I can make distinct from DYC or from you, with each offering unique and valuable contributions, such that if 3 are gathered together or 2 or whatever number, that is not just tripling or doubling of the capacity of any one organism. There are harmonies and “alchemical” sparks that can arise, as well as the potential for argument and partisan bickering and so on. Any one of us would not know of the vast advantages in efficiency that the others can offer until we start communicating and collaborating.

Last night I met one of my clients for the first time. She is an acupuncturist. In passing, She mentioned that many Chinese practitioners who speak English use the English word “Space” as one of the 5 elements, if I understood her correctly. So, the language and labels of the 5 elements are not the elements. The elements (or “qualities”) are the fundamental reality (or so we can assert) and the labels are just codes to refer to the fundamental reality.

I have a fluency with language that many find distinctive. Some find it refreshing, some threatening, some confusing, and so on. I can empathize with all of that. As a sidenote, I think that “empathize with one another” is a much more precise translation of the 2nd “commandment” than “love one another.” I also put the word commandment in quotes because we could also label “empathizing with one another” (or “respecting one another”) as a symptom (as in an indicator) as in the “fruit” of a spiritual awakening.

If we construct the ten commandments in to the form of a metaphorical tree (along the lines of the ancient Hebrew Kabbalah), then we can place the first commandment as the roots or trunk or foundation. The second commandment of interpersonal relating is itself a foundation for the next 8. Jesus is reported to have said something like “On the foundation of the first two commandments rest all of the law and all the words of the prophets.”

So, in regard to the subject matter of this dialogue of sperm sorting function, we may respect the marriage boundaries of a society and do not even lust after a woman who is connected in a particular way with a husband that could be offended by our interest. If we do not respect that boundary, there can be unusual consequences. It is a practical matter. Do not stir up that swarm of wasps.

However, what if two men and a woman (or two women and a man, etc) all agree to a “non-exclusive arrangement?” Some of that is of course entirely acceptable within the multiple wives polygamy practiced by many of the ancient Hebrews.

Refrain from taking another what is publicly recognized as rightfully theirs (do not steal). Refrain from violating the accepted bounds of marital bonds.

So, there is a degree of “hot water” that we (the participants in this discussion) are approaching. Of course, many people we know might be startled and threatened by a discussion of this sort. Our parents might be shocked or our children and so on.

I have engaged in a relatively brief (though rather casual) series of encounters with two different women who were legally married to someone else at the time. Both were “distinctive.” Both of the women were mothers already. There are unique complications possible in any particular situation, and these two sequences differed considerably.

Modesty is not just for my own practical functionality, but also so as to not interfere with others by distracting them. Modesty in this case references a degree of privacy or even secrecy.

I do not mean deceit or slipperiness (which may also have their value), but simple discretion. A discrete modesty allows for other people to be relaxed and ignorant. If others have questions and so on, they can ask. If the social turmoil reaches a certain point, then there may be a retreat or an expulsion of one community form another.

Being “conventional” in the 19th century sense (either married or unmarried and celibate) are certainly not the only two forms that arise among human societies. However, I am respectful of the possibility that we in this discussion are “avoiding something.” Why do we even seek to set ourselves apart, if we do? Is there an anxiety behind the process? Is there a judgment against the “conventional” either/or dichotomy? is there a shaming and a shame?

When population density is low and resources are abundant, then plural marriage may arise rather naturally and spontaneously. Or, perhaps scarcity can contribute to plural marriage.

I assert that we do not “need to find the exactly one right way to earn our way in to heaven.” Further, I assert that we do not “need to avoid the exactly one wrong way.”

There are different ways. There is a time for every purpose under heaven.

Obviously, interactions like these can lead to the formation of plural households and so on. We all know that, however much we focus on it. We know that these are mostly men (Hi Liv if you are out there) talking relatively hypothetically about something that may be for them a curiosity, an interest, a passion, or whatever.

There is the possible mode of experience of “if I could only have THAT, then my life would be perfect!” That is fine. That is a kind of enthusiasm- perhaps naive, but certainly enthusiastic.

Hell-Raising Love Monster and I visited Sunday night I think it was. He invited me to this blog (as he has done a few times before in the last year or two). He was sitting here as I was typing my first two comments, and we had a conversation going at the same time as I was typing, I think, which contributed to the “jumbled” series of questions, some of which I typed as the sole author and for some of which I may have been operating more as his typist. So there was a real “jumbling” of two people’s thoughts and a background conversation and a bit of a rush in regard to timing.

He can comment for himself in regard to 5 elements, which are his pet subject more than mine. He can also comment as he wishes in regard to our personal history. I will leave my reference vague as he seems more reserved than I about sharing personal history and so on- perhaps more modest. Note that he used to have regular internet access and he recently relocated, resulting in much less internet access lately.

But and I made a list of a few men and women in our local area that might be interested in a conversation and practice related to these topics. I believe that of the two men we identified as “candidates,” only one has responded so far and he expressed explicit openness to the subject.

He so far has more experience with “dating multiple women at once” than I do. I have experiences that he does not- naturally.

Anyway, he invited me to study this conversation and join it. He also listed several of your online IDs to me on Sunday as we discussed “possible candidates for a possible plural exploration.” At that time, I had no familiarity at all with any of you.

So, for sure, here we are sharing our relatively unusual thoughts and socializing.This is not an especially familiar subject matter for me. However, I have been exploring some of the issues (not the ovary function stuff) for quite a while. We even may notice some of the typical “testosterone” reflexes in our interactions with each other.

We may be “relaxing in to” empathy and respect for each other as men. We may have in common a shame or contempt toward masculinity. Further, it may be nearly universal. What may be distinct about us and our conversation here is that we are opening to exploring the subject matter of masculinity, shame, shaming, contempt, taboos, language, social conventions. and so on.

Certainly, there are scientists whose research we find intriguing, However, an academic or scientific conversation is just one kind of conversation or interaction or experiment.

I also note that I have NOT read all of the comments prior to my first. I made my first comment saying “I intend to read the article.” After reading it, I made the second comment from which a new set of interactions arose.

I am just getting in to the comments prior to mine. Justin’s second comment about “human neural development after birth” is much more precise and in the same spirit as my reference to “long gestation.” I wrote not from extensive research and a scientific precision, but as a casual commentator, such that “approximately accurate” statements that reveal the kind of logic I am using were the main point (not to overlook bonobos). I was not trying to present a precise theoretical model, but to develop a topic and “share some questions.” So, you might respect and empathize with any sincere errors that I may have made.

People sometimes make sincere errors. People sometimes rush. People sometimes confuse one thing for another. Shall we empathize with them and repent of any past contempt for them, which may have been a sincere error (a sin)?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Sin is the beginning of sincerity. Real is the beginning of reality. Rea is the beginning of realizationification.

Please not take this joke too seriously. Please do not take this paradox too lightly. What paradox? I don’t know exactly. Maybe there is no such thing as a paradox.

An ironic statement, for the mind is the process of questioning and we may call (from our minds) the heart to be a symbol of trust.

Beliefs are constructed in language. Without language, there is perception, but no capacity for conceptual belief. Belief is a great innovation, but also the root of many possible complications and confusions. Conceptual beliefs are the root of many social developments, including projecting in to the future- prediction.

The rational mind is all about beliefs and predictions and projections. It is not that we should not trust our perception, but that over time a mature humility may arise in which we are confident of our beliefs at the same time as open-minded, rather than arrogant or insistent or stubborn or terrified hysterically.

Society may condition certain organisms (nearly all) to be quite repressed. We are trained to be terrified of social stigma and being an outlaw or rebel or reject or recluse, etc…. We are trained to respect labels, to respect reputation and we may eventually learn to admit the power of the herd and the media propagandists. we may even come to respect the powers that be not in spite of their deception and corruption, but for the actual nature of their deception and corruption, which requires a huge amount of work and certainly bears fruit on occasion.

Who or what is Satan to you? Is Satan an angel of God, an agent of God, a messenger of God, an instrument of God? Satan comes and tempts you with hope and fear and so on. Is that a crime or a training method? How many here are familiar with the movie “V for Vendetta” and the “training” of the rebellious prisoner?

Saturn is an elder male archetype who disciplines, even tyranically. Are tyrants the enemies of God? Are soldiers the enemies of God? Who says? What is your direct observation?

Who or what is God to you? Are you an angel of God, an agent of God, a messenger of God, an instrument of God?

You should not be so interested in God. Your interest in God will ruin your life. You need to be practical. Your family needs you. Your society needs you. You have other higher priorities.

You need to save the world from Satan. You need to save the world from the United States and the Federal Reserve and from the Holy Roman Empire of Inquisition and from temptation. You need to save the world from Mohammed and Jesus and the Zionists and the Soviets and the Nazis and utopia and Zion.

You need to save the world from the world. You need to save the world from words and language and metaphors and irony and insincerity and beliefs.

You need to save the world from sin. You need to do what you need to do. You need to save the world from you. You are the biggest threat to society that has ever been demonized or vilified. Society is a threat to you. You are your own worst enemy, but also your own best enemy.

You need to be less realistic. You need to be more like you already are, but yet you cannot because that is impossible for you, because you are not God, for whom all things are impossible. God is distant and remote and weak and subject to be overthrown at any time by God’s arch-nemesis, Obama Bin Laden, who is a famous comic strip character created by Santa Claus in the year 9347358992.

Art is the highest form of flattery. Foolishness is something that no one should ever read, because anyone who reads that word will turn in to a watermelon seed and then swallow it, resulting in the release of an enormous amount of tension and stress and sexual repression and kundalini and libido and so on.

Forgive me if I started going off all ad libido there for a moment. It must have been the devil who made me do it.

We could also say “functional order” or “in working order.” In
“good order” is similar.

I think of “Maslow’s hierarchy.” When certain “priorities” are fulfilled, then new fascinations and interests develop.

One who cannot breath is not concerned with thirst or hunger. One who is hedydrated and famished is not concerned with their mortgage being upside down or the future of their favorite sports team.

People have different priorities and concerns and focuses and preoccupations and conversations and beliefs and so on. It is a great luxury to be able to contemplate the morality of slavery and homosexuality and homophobia and so on. Contempt is another great luxury.

In Genesis 3, if I recall correctly, there is a reference to a shift to an agricultural based diet (as a curse, with men having to plow fields). The accompanying curse is that women would have pains in childbirth.

This is supported by science. Grain-based diets undernourish humans, leading to smaller pelvis in women, a smaller birth canal, and difficulty in childbirth and nursing (post-partum depression /biochemical depletion/processing of toxins “stashed away” during pregnancy).

The violent brother (Cain) was the more vegetarian brother. Inflammation due to imbalance of too much Omega 6 fatty acids, as well as new modern twists like processed oils and high fructose corn syrup, all contribute to certain behavior results, like drinking lots of alcohol would. Cain had contempt for Abel (AKA jealousy), and then attacked and killed Abel.

Contempt is jealousy. Jealousy is contempt.

Historically, the violent eaters of vegetable based diets have destroyed the relatively peaceful primitive hunter gatherer cultures. The agricultural civilizations have been victorious. They are clever and deceitful and organized and technologically devastating with their bullets and bombs.

Further, many chronic health issues an be remedied or prevented by a primitive or paleo diet. See http://www.ppnf.org

You may consider other phrases like indoctrination, programming, repression, traumatizing, governing, and training. Mind control and behavior control are among the most obvious functions of churches and governments, right?

Below I specify a post that I recently referenced. You can use Ctrl-F to search on this page for the word “false” and the following will be your first result:

“The biggest obstacle is the false teachings about our natures which is viw the media,school and religions.”

Comment by dyc4557 on May 17, 2012 6:50 am

I completely respect the sentiment expressed in that statement, and I also respect the experience of frustration or contempt for the indoctrination programs of media, schools, and religion. My additional clarification would be that if one’s nature is directly recognized, then a bunch of words about the reality would be no obstacle to already recognizing the reality.

We can also recognize the reality that the media, public schools, and popular churches often “go out of their way” to specifically fulfill the function of presenting a bunch of words about “our natures” which may influence or govern our lives, our attention and our perceptions and so on. Any instance of teaching emphasizes certain aspects and neglects others, at least in any particular moment.

As to the words contempt, shame, and jealousy, there may be an issue with the comprehension of what language is. Language is a system that includes a bunch of categorical labels.

Only furniture is furniture. However, both couches and desks are types of furniture. Only couches are couches and only desks are desks, but all couches are furniture and all couches are desks.

With physical objects, we can agree on the simplicity of the broader categories and subcategories. However, perhaps due to any confusion promoted by schools and churches and so on, people may argue about contempt and arguing and shame and jealousy.

When there is clarity about the reality of these things, there is instant comprehension, just as with furniture and couch and desk. However, to the extent that words like contempt and shame are foreign to us (or only vaguely distinguished), then there may be ignorance as to how they are being used. If there are expectations that are not met in viewing a particular usage, then there may be confusion or even angst or aggression or terror and so on.

This is precisely the right conversation to be in. However, it may also be precisely the right conversation to conclude and abandon.

Flee from this conversation if these words frighten you. If you can be terrified by mere words, then plural marriages is probably not for you at this time.

So, saying “only contempt is contempt” implies that it is a relatively inclusive category, though I would assert that contempt is actually a form of fear, and that sadness and anger (i.e. contempt) are also fundamentally types of fear. (Grief is a type of fear and greivances are a type of fear.)

Note that I did not say that fear is bad. However, it can be dangerous as in a severe complication.

So, if contempt is the broader contempt (as a type of fearing), then shaming and jealousy and arguing would all be forms of fear as well. Fear is the trunk, contempt is the limb, and jealousy and shaming and arguing are branches of the limb of contempt.

For those who EXPERIENCE the reality of the living tree of the living god of living language, this is all already clear. For those who are in reaction to the amygdala reflex of terror and strife and hell, this may seem confusing or nonsense or irrelevant. Then again, maybe it is irrelevant. 😉

darn it. when I wrote “contempt is the broader contempt,” that was supposed to be “if contempt is the broader CATEGORY.” I will punish these fingers even more severely, because as we all know, punishment is the highest form of reinforcement, flattery, and categorization. – just being silly again…..

Okay jrfibonacci and others who have followed the thread here I used the power of “repentance” function that I have as one of the admins on this blog and removed a comment of my own.

Having reread and considered these things I have changed my tune.

Well jrfibonacci you have a way of teaching which I was not used to. But you have a point. I don’t pretend to accept or understand everything you have said. But first words are just words. The belief behind those words is the potent entity. When we believe in something we give that thing power in our life. It really does not matter whether it is a “true” or “false” belief. If we believe it is effecting us.
More later maybe.

Yes all beliefs are real beliefs. Beliefs involve words. So, we are trained in language, which only “works” if we have the neurological capacity for language, which apparently all of us here do have.

How we are trained to use language relates to how we will categorize experience. This conditioning is the development of fluency in a language. The training is not evil or good, but beliefs about evil and good are examples of training in how to categorize experience.

So, in our youth, it is functional for us to be informed and trained in what not to do, like not to stick the fork in the power outlet and not to walk out in to traffic and so on. We are taught “evil” or what to avoid or what to fear. If the stories of Santa Claus or Mithras or God and Hell and Satan include a bit of drama and absurdity, so what?

The point is that whatever it takes to influence behavior is what is applied in this training. So, we are trained as to what to avoid or fear or keep secret as well as what to seek or develop or cultivate or publicize.

Different cultures may focus on different behaviors to avoid or promote, but that is inevitable. In my household as a child, I was not taught to avoid lions because there were not any around. I was taught not to put forks in power outlets and not to play with matches and not to put my hand on the stove and not to drink the chemicals in the plastic containers under the sink.

So, training in beliefs is functional (each belief serves a particular function or purpose). That is the point of the 3rd chapter of Ecclesiastes: there is a functionality for ever purpose under heaven, for every development on the tree of life.

Language (and beliefs or premises or presumptions) are useful. How they are useful is the next issue.

Neurological structures in language organize attention, perception, interpretation, response, and results. That is the point of the blog linked in my prior comment. Language is mind control, influence, governing, organizing of human society.

Each belief has it’s purpose. When LDS churches promote a particular belief, there is a functionality behind that promotion. When any other belief is presented (by an MD, a school teacher, and so on), that is for the nourishing of another possible perception. Belief informs perception. Language (“belief”) structures perception.

Language and belief are not synonyms, but beliefs require language. Beliefs are fundamental in language. If I say that I am saying that I am saying something, the presumptions of that silly language are that there is an “I” which is somehow real or powerful.

In fact, that “I” is not the primary religious teaching of the ancient Hebrews or the teaching attributed to Jesus. “The will of the Heavenly Father is the only will and what I do is actually just the activity of God. I am just an appendage or limb of God.”

Is that true? Can that be proven? No, it is just a construction in language!

It is just a PERSPECTIVE or framework. It is like saying that there are 24 hours in a day. You cannot PROVE that there are 24 hours in a day. We just DECLARE that there is a day and each day has 24 hours.

Is God the one writing this sentence? That is an issue of faith (of structures in language), not empirical physical reality, but linguistic or spiritual metaphor or models.

No one argues about whether there are 24 hours in a day or 23 or 25. It is a model in language. No one calls it a belief system, but why not?

Consider fahrenheit and celsius. Which one is “true?”

To ask which one is true reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of language. To ask if God exists also reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of language, like asking “how many false realities are there?” As a joke, it is a useful joke to point out that there is no such thing as a false reality. Of course there is only one reality. However, within reality, there is a secondary realm called the realm of heaven or the realm of God or the kingdom of language. Seek it first. Enter it.

Telestial is a realm of language. Celestial is a realm of language. Terrestial is a realm of language.

Each are entirely valid. Each result in distinct experiences, such as hell or heaven or distress or grace.

I noticed you said that “There is the possible mode of experience of “if I could only have THAT, then my life would be perfect!” That is fine. That is a kind of enthusiasm- perhaps naive, but certainly enthusiastic.”

I know that words are just words…but at the same time they seem to be of great importance in your mind as you have identified them as The Kingdom of God. I would say that Language is a part of the Kingdom of God but it does not comprise the entirety of it although it pervades all parts. If that makes any sense…anyway, speaking of words…might I suggest another word to replace enthusiasm here. I agree with your sentiment for sure. But since the etymology of the word ‘enthusiasm’ indicates being possessed of (a) deity, might I suggest stimulation, interest, stirring, motivation…which all may be internal or external or even a little bit of both….but “little bit” being the key words. The words that are shared on here are definitely leading their issuers to some kind of result and bringing results to the speakers… But that EN in ENthusiasm, I believe, refers more to what you were saying about having the Revelation of God withIN your heart. Now when one is possessed of deity then those words or VERBS become more than representatives of actions. While we could speak of the different realms of reality and there are infinite realms…but my point is when you feel it fully you are enthused and that is when as important a role as words play…we stop the yappin and make it happen. Mantra meets Mudra, Spirit, Flesh…Heaven, Earth.

I think polyandry [and multiple sources of familiar sperm] may also act as an environmental cue of a stable rearing environment for the infant.

In order to maintain narrow hips for bipedal locomotion [while at the same time outsourcing expensive colon tissue in exchange for expensive cerebral tissue], humans shifted most of the critical gestation time when the brain goes through rapid development to the “womb” of the family. Essentially, physical development of organs and such takes place in utero — but neural development takes place in the tribe.

I know research has found that the timing of a girl’s first menstrual cycle can be influenced by how her father relates with her — essentially a bad home life tells the girl’s body to grow-up fast and find a husband [because the Dad is awful].

I wonder if there are such cues being sent by having multiple fathers — as a signal of a more secure home environment for mother and baby?

Your comments about enthusiasm are logical and precise. I also will emphasize the value of “imprecision” as in a relaxed allowing of the analytical mind to go in to high gear or even to “subside altogether,” at least metaphorically speaking.

Consider a delighted child who says: “if I could only have THAT, then my life would be perfect!” we can call it delight or enthusiasm or nothing. There is the spirit of God even in the child even in those words or any other. To see God’s activity in all activities may be incredibly easy, though perhaps “a little bit” unfamiliar. We may be accustomed to reactively identify some power besides the Heavenly Actor, such as “I” and “my boss” and “Obama,” as if those linguistic identities are isolated from one another and are real and are powerful, neglecting the power of the Holy One.

Now, imagine that we do that, but then we repent and say, “God was the one doing that through God’s instruments: me, you, Obama, bla bla bla.” That is not what we usually mean as “forgiving” because there is no focus on the personal identity.

“God is no respecter of persons.” All we do is let God be (rather than “becoming God” and suddenly God may already be here. That may be called the Revelation of God.

So, when God speaks through a delighted child and uses imprecise language like “and then my life would be perfect,” so what? If there is delight, wow! That is God delighting. If there is despair, wow! That is God despairing.

Does God “fix it” when another branch of God is despairing? Perhaps not.

I remember when my eldest nephew was about 4, he was upset and talking to me about running away from home. I just joined the conversation with him and we made up a story about him running away from home. I asked him where he would go. I asked him what he would take with him. I asked him what he would do to earn money. He said that he would go to Pizza Hut and, while he was there, he would as a cashier (again, he was 4 years old at the time) and that he would take his two younger brothers with him when he ran away, as well as his mother, as well as his father, and perhaps me as well (I don’t recall). Before long, his story of running away started to sound more like a vacation or something like that.

Soon, he was laughing and making jokes. Of course, I said to him, “You know, that is really a wonderful idea. Once you run away and you have everything work just like you said, then your life will become perfect instead of being absolutely horrible like it is right now. So, you better get some rest now so that tomorrow we can get started early on making your life perfect eventually.”

The Domain of Language is not “in the words,” but in the spirit of life. The spirit moves through the words which it creates.

And that reminds me of the story of the time that Jesus saved God from Satan. It all began when Jesus said “there is such a thing as a literal interpretation. When you interpret one thing in to something else, you should always make sure that your conversion from one thing in to something else is literally a precise, verbatim, word-for-word exact duplicate of the thing that you are changing in to something else by interpreting it.”

For some reason I found my self pre-occupied with this “sperm selection” idea,, I have been thinking that it may just be necessary to save the DNA of the human race. It has become apparent to me that our DNA is under attack in many ways, chemtrails, bio-engineered foods, Fukishima radiation clouds, bpo-oilspill etc. etc.

If for no other reason I can at least in my own mind find justfication for it. Not to mention the number of birthdefects that would be prevented. And how do you place a value on saving a child from a futre of misery because you saved it from a crippling birrthdefect?

I think these are issues that nedd to be addressed by any fair minded person

I think that when considering what constitutes eternal marriage the principle of freeagency must be factored in. In monogamy ownership by the most dominate spouse seems to be the rule, however subtle it may be. But if done in “any degree of unrighteousness amen to the priesthood of that man”., intelligences must be free to unleash the creation abilities, whether it be man or women..

I could have sworn that I wrote in a comment somewhere on this blog about the results of the experiment with women’s menstrual cycle and armpit sweat, but performing a blog search turns up absolutely nothing. So, I guess I must have written about it on some other blog…

(If I have written about it on this blog, and you know where it happens to be, Justin, please let me know so that I can link to it.)

Anyway, there was a study done in which women had their armpit sweat cotton swabbed on a daily basis and then the swabs were given to the other women participating in the study to sniff that same day. Or something to that effect. What they found was that all the women who participated ended up having their period around the same time, each woman synchronizing her period with whichever woman was the “dominant” female among them.

(I would imagine that dominance was determined by these female olfactory organs by whichever sweat was estrogen dominant. In other words, the most feminine and fertile of the ladies was the one that the others copied. But that is just my own speculation.)

In a sense, this would be the counter-part of sperm competition, with each woman’s egg competing against the other women’s eggs. A female, alerted (through scent) that another female more fertile and feminine than she is (having more estrogen, perhaps) is getting ready for ovulation, or is already ovulating, may initiate an egg competition by her body becoming fertile, also, at the same time. Perhaps the same type of genetic upgrade happens, also.

But these speculations are not the point of this post. I write this here because of another idea that just occurred to me tonight: that a woman nearing menopause might use “scented-egg competition” to remain fertile indefinitely. An older woman living with a younger woman, and making sure that these scents are smelled daily, so that the periods become synchronized, might end up keeping off menopause altogether, because the older woman’s body would be in constant competition with the more fertile and feminine woman, which would cause the older woman’s body to become younger, more fertile and more feminine, in order to compete for male attention.

I don’t know if these speculations are true, but if so, then the idea of a harem, in which the women all live together, might end up making the whole lot of them super-, and perpetually, fertile. Of course, such might be the case only if they were not masked with foreign odors and scents, such as chemical deodorants and perfumes or covered up by multiple layers of clothing, etc. See this comment on that topic. Also, see this abstract, which supports one of the claims of that comment:

Female body odour is a potential cue to ovulation

Human body odours have been reported to influence female mate choice. Women prefer the odours of immunocompatible men and, during their fertile period, judge the body odours of men with symmetrical bodies—which is indicative of genetic quality—as sexy and pleasant. The reproductive success of men largely depends on mating with fertile women, but it is not known whether men can detect a woman’s fertile period. We asked women who had regular menstrual cycles and who were not using hormonal contraceptives to wear a T–shirt for three consecutive nights during their late follicular (ovulatory) phase and another T–shirt during the luteal (non-ovulatory) phase of their menstrual cycle. Male raters judged the odours of T–shirts worn during the follicular phase as more pleasant and sexy than odours from T–shirts worn during the luteal phase. The odour differences between the follicular and luteal phases did not dissipate quickly over time as male raters were able to detect and judge follicular phase body odours as more pleasant and sexy than the odours from the luteal phase even after the T–shirts were kept at room temperature for one week. These findings suggest that ovulation may not be concealed and that men could use ovulation–linked odours in their mate selection.

Pheromones are airborne chemical signals that are released by an individual into the environment and which affect the physiology or behaviour of other members of the same species. The idea that humans produce pheromones has excited the imagination of scientists and the public, leading to widespread claims for their existence, which, however, has remained unproven. Here we investigate whether humans produce compounds that regulate a specific neuroendocrine mechanism in other people without being consciously detected as odours (thereby fulfilling the classic definition of a pheromone). We found that odourless compounds from the armpits of women in the late follicular phase of their menstrual cycles accelerated the preovulatory surge of luteinizing hormone of recipient women and shortened their menstrual cycles. Axillary (underarm) compounds from the same donors which were collected later in the menstrual cycle (at ovulation) had the opposite effect: they delayed the luteinizing-hormone surge of the recipients and lengthened their menstrual cycles. By showing in a fully controlled experiment that the timing of ovulation can be manipulated, this study provides definitive evidence of human pheromones.

Again, if the above speculation is true, it might not even be necessary to have a foreign adult female (such as a second wife) in proximity to achieve the menopause cancelling effect. A daughter of child-bearing age living at home might have just as much effect on her mother, if the mother can detect her daughter’s scent and become synchronized to her.

(And as a tribal strategy for maximum reproduction, if the above proves true, harems as a living arrangement might be useful.)

I could have sworn that I wrote in a comment somewhere on this blog about the results of the experiment with women’s menstrual cycle and armpit sweat, but performing a blog search turns up absolutely nothing. So, I guess I must have written about it on some other blog…

(If I have written about it on this blog, and you know where it happens to be, Justin, please let me know so that I can link to it.)

I’m thinking you probably mean this one from Wheat & Tares [comment #22]:

If that’s the case, what is it that women find sexually attractive?

•Scent. Women rate how someone smells as the MOST important of the senses in choosing a lover, more important than sight. “Women’s sexual arousal is enhanced by good body odors–and killed by bad ones… women can literally smell the scent of a gene complex known to play a key role in immune functioning.”

This goes for men, also. The problem is that it is really hard to smell anyone these days. Men use anti-perspirants and deodorants to cover up their scent and women completely shave off the armpit hair plus use anti-perspirants and deodorants. That, and both sexes add additional scents on top in the form of chemical perfumes and colognes.

The easiest, quickest way to attract a man is to flash some armpit hair. It is designed to draw the eye’s attention. The hair follicle itself, embedded into the skin, is designed (when it moves) to stimulate the glands beneath, so that pheromones are released. It is this chemical scent that attracts.

The pheromonal scent on a woman changes during the month, depending upon whether she is fertile. When fertile, the scent becomes sweeter.

For men the scent remains constant, but changes in intensity, based on various factors.

Every man and woman has a distinct odor. Young women smell floral and slight, older women richer and stronger.

The response is the same in both men and women. If a man takes his shirt off and allows his armpit hair to be seen and his scent to be smelled (not that of chemicals), there will be a physiological response in the females around him regardless of whether he is their “type.” It is merely that he smells like a man and it is man that woman likes. The same goes for a male, when seeing and smelling a woman, it triggers a response in him.

Once a woman or man acts on the attraction, the specific scent is linked to the attraction, and all that is needed to re-initiate the sex response is to allow the scent to be smelled again. So, for example, in the case of my wife, all I need to do is lean over her with my shirt off and allow her to smell my pits and voila!, she is instantly horny. Or, I can tell when she is fertile by merely sniffing her pits.

Of course, none of this works if the body odors are masked with chemicals, if the hair is shaved clean (which doesn’t allow the follicle to move below the skin surface) or if the person has just emerged from a bath or shower, which removes bodily scents (for a time.)

No, that wasn’t the comment, but thanks for bringing that up, nonetheless. What I was referring to was the “swab and sniff” study that was done that showed synchronization of menstrual cycles using axillary swabs. I think that this must have been a private teaching of mine which I gave to my wife or others and which I thought I had written about on the Internet.

That original study was controverted because of the methods that were used, but the abstract I quoted above was a newer study done with, apparently, better methods, and still showed the same effect.

The house of Israel is supposed to become as numerous as the stars in the heavens or as the sands of the sea. Bodies in the Millennium will be translated, according to my understanding, so with “upgraded bodies,” the birth rate is probably going to be staggering…